-
Originally Posted by paynow
-
04-25-2011 03:44 PM
-
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
What I'm saying here is that they are blanket licenses. If they are playing any kind of music, they have it, and are lying if they tell a musician "the reason we can't hire you is because we have no license", and as you stand there listening to that BS, you hear the radio going in the background.
-
I have been receiving mailshots from a website called the live music forum for a number of years now, and I have to say that live music in the UK is no where near as common as it used to be.
The Live Music Forum, Campaign For Live Music.
My income has suffered, along with that of many UK musicians, due to licencing acts that put small venues out of pocket. When I hear someone say do I have a licence to play my flamenco guitar, this is like asking Bob Geldof to donate the proceeds from Band Aid to develop chemical and biological weapons. IMHO!
-
In Australia it wasn't only copyright licencing..
"Live music venues face tough licensing conditions, such as being required to provide extra security staff when holding live music events, regardless of their safety record. The requirement, also faced by cafes and restaurants with live music, has substantially increased the operating costs of many small venues."
a quote from People power for live music | Green Left Weekly (this was the first that came up in a search)
Not sure where its all at these days as I play for my own enjoyment and have long ago given up on the thought of ever earning a dime playing for others..
Cheers
MikeLast edited by MikeJ; 04-25-2011 at 06:06 PM.
-
I just want to clarify a couple points on copyright law that have come up in this post. First, I want to state this should strictly not be taken as legal advice. I am an attorney, but I am not providing specific legal advice with the following statement (or any other statement on this forum).
Copyright differs from country to country. Within the United States, laws differ for how long a work may be copyrighted by the author depending upon when the work was copyrighted. Most tunes in the jazz standards books are still under copyright and are not part of the public domain. That means that the holder of the copyright has to grant permission for public performance of the song. What is overwhelming done by holders of songs' copyrights is that they assign the collection duties to ASCAP or BMI to collect fees on their behalf (as a practical matter, it is ridiculous to have a copyright holder track down every individual who wants to perform a song and negotiate performance compensation).
ASCAP and BMI in turn issue licenses to places where performances are held. Essentially, if an establishment wants to perform songs in one of the company's catalogs then that establishment needs to negotiate with ASCAP and/or BMI. These groups calculate a rate based on market, size of the establishment, and number of other factors.
It is important to note that U.S. Copyright provides and exception for playing "homestyle" devices in an establishment. This exemption allows for the play a radio in a restaurant without having to obtain permission from copyright holders. This is also the same exemption that is widely used by sports bars so that people can watch the big game at the bar.
This boils down to, for federal copyright law, if a live musician is playing, the establishment will almost certainly need a license. If the establishment is merely playing the radio (not c.d.'s or an ipod, etc.), then no license is required in the U.S. Please note that in addition to any federal law, state and local laws apply. Additional regulations may apply, especially when alcohol is available at the establishment.
-
Originally Posted by billkath
uh-huh. along with the idiot utopian politicians who believed that everyone deserved a mortgage, even if they weren't good credit risks.
kind of like the idiot utopian politicians who believe that health care is a right, and not a privelege, and that we should print money to pay for it.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
-
Originally Posted by Bill C
That 'commercial setting' is an insidious little phrase as well, it illustrates how rights collection organizations have managed to turn things upside down. The primary reason for going to a restaurant or bar is not to listen to musicians, but to eat or drink. Restaurants and bars may, it is true, gain a commercial advantage by having music of one kind or another. To extrapolate from that to the conclusion that this is a 'commercial setting' and that they should therefore have to pay copyright collection agencies is the kind of insanity only lawyers are capable of conning people into believing - by the same logic, interior designers and toilet cleaners should get a percentage of every meal. And why stop there? The furniture makers and the manufacturers of the toilet-cleaning fluids should also have a cut.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
I DO believe Everyone deserves a home. I don't believe people should be stupid enough to lend to those who can never afford to pay it back- rent to them at a rate they can afford.The state retains the asset. The more they earn, the more they contribute to the rent. When the amount of rent equals the amount a mortgage would cost, provide the mortgage to them, reducing the "asking price" by monies paid for rent.
I don't believe health care is a privilege - it is a right. A caring society looks after all it's citizens, irrespective of wealth. You don't print money to pay for it-society pays for it with taxation.
I've watched Fox News a lot recently, and they seem to be telling you that a social democracy is about just giving stuff away-handouts to freeloaders.
It's not-it's about a hand up.
-
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Music writers as well as players deserve to get paid for their work - particularly where others are using it for commercial advantage. The rights organisations are made up of their members - music writers and their publishers.
-
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
I agree sometimes the copyright police argument for not having performers is a little ridiculous. However, keep in mind that far more restrictive laws were on the books in municipalities at the peak of Jazz. In fact, Thelonious Monk lost his NYC cabaret license a number of times, and this caused great financial stress for him and his family.Last edited by mike_k; 04-26-2011 at 09:32 AM.
-
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
-
Bar's/Lounges that have juke boxes must pay a fee to have the box. If the bar has cable/fios the price they pay is based on occupancy. Then on top of that the city/town may require a license.
Some towns have been lax to enforce the fee's , but in today economy I'll bet they check everyone.
-
Originally Posted by billkath
the number$ aren't with you my friend. nice philosophy though. have a good day.
-
The discussion was about copyright and licensing issues, not healthcare, O'Reilly, Fox, CNBC or what have you. There's so much of that everywhere else, is it really necessary here?
-
I also think that if you can show that you will bring in more $ than you take out, you will have more gigs.
not sure how you develop a reliable fan base.
I do not have one.
-
Originally Posted by paynow
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
I am amazed at how many restaurants try to sidestep fees by playing GarageBand loop tracks that some employee mashed in their bedroom. Then they put up a few indigo lights and go all new age on the customer ... like this is the new hip moody environment ... Bogus beyond belief.
My wife was hilarious at one off these restaurantS ... She asked the waitress to turn down the video games while we were dining.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
This one I'm going to have to remember.
-
My first intoxicated rant.
I find it rather perplexing that this thread exists at all. It gives an almost disrespectful impression. Music is the first consideration. Any legal professionals are bound to take a back seat in this respect. Music does not care about this kind of nonesense. Lawyers talk crap and artists comunicate. There's no way to tame something on this scale. Attempting to do so shows complete ignorance and imaturity.
-
Originally Posted by czardas
What are you talking about?
-
I just was about to delete this, but you quoted me. It's a bit embarassing, but I get really wound up about music being licenced. To me this is complete nonesense. Music is about community and sharing. The very idea that lawyers earn from music makes me sick. Learning law is a soft option compaired to lerning music. I don't consider people in these type of professions as being particulrly knowledgeable. In fact I really don't consider law to be an accademic subject. Perhaps it's just my personal opinion, but never mind.
-
Originally Posted by czardas
-
something like that yeah. Thank goodness for spell checker
Dell Arte/Stringphonic Basic 503 Gypsy Jazz Guitar
Today, 01:45 PM in For Sale